Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McNeil v. Internal Revenue Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 4, 2010

JAMES ROY MCNEIL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding in pro se, sued the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") for a tax refund. The IRS moved to dismiss on grounds that the Plaintiff did not make any claim for refund before instituting the present lawsuit. Because of that failure, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that the matter be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on grounds that the government was entitled to sovereign immunity from suit. By Order filed April 5, 2010, this Court adopted those findings and recommendations and dismissed the case.

Plaintiff neither opposed Defendant's Motion to Dismiss nor filed any objection to the findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. After judgment was entered in accordance with this Court's Order dismissing the case, however, Plaintiff filed a one page letter with the Court asking that the case be "reopened" because the IRS still "owes me $633.00." The Court will construe that letter as a Motion for Reconsideration.

Under Eastern District Local Rule 230(j), an application for reconsideration must show what new or different facts are claimed to exist at the time of reconsideration which did not exist beforehand, or what other grounds exist for the Motion. Plaintiff's instant request fails to meet that standard. Not only did he fail to oppose the Motion to Dismiss at the time it was made or object to the findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge thereon, he also provides absolutely no new or different facts or circumstances to indicate that reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 28) is accordingly DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100504

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.